No CAC 2nd time around

@Crypto said:
Cac looks at the complete package, your coin is worth less in a new holder and may not be up their bid standards. The increased liquidity of the rattler make eyes a little more forgiving.

This is interesting if accurate, and what I was inquiring about in my comment. With as many CAC threads as we’ve had here, I don’t remember this aspect of their evaluation coming up.

It may have been a borderline green bean and landed on the other side on a resubmit. You can always resubmit and ask for JA to explain his reasons.

@oldrattler said:
I had a 1908 $2 1/2 gold Indian ms63 in an old rattler holder with a CAC bean on it. Looked pretty good so I cracked it out and sent it in raw. Came back ms63. Sent it back to CAC and it didn't sticker. Ouch! Consistency? Go figure.

I have had some success playing this game, but in the end it is the coin. If they see something they don't like, you can try many times. I know of an amazing coin that was sent in 7 times by different people and failed every time. All submitters were upset about it and it is a truly great coin, but CAC saw something they did not like. So be it and their right.

Best, SH

@Zoins said:

Very interesting if CAC bean considers age of holders. I never thought about it but it makes a lot of sense from a liquidity and demand perspective.

While I agree with liquidity and demand increasing with a very old holder, I’d be shocked if J. A. takes that into account at all. I believe he looks ONLY at the coin to make a determination if it passes or not.

Steve

I still disagree. I believe it didn’t sticker with the new cert number since J.A. was not aware it was the same coin that originally stickered in the same grade, and since the line separating a C coin from a B coin is subjective, the coin on that border just went the other way with the second (newer) cert.

I just posted this on the other forum.

Steve

I’m curious, what grade were you thinking it would regrade as?

I believe it is the coin that earns the sticker, not the holder. Remember, grading is not science, it is informed opinion... and likely the coin is borderline. The graders almost assuredly were a different group the second time through, and the decision went the other way. Cheers, RickO

Many people share this opinion "incuse Indians are one of the hardest series to grade consistently."

Not exactly accurate "If you are going to resubmit a coin numerous times, you're wasting your time and money unless you get the coin re-slabbed each time with a new serial number."

JA said that there is a small (approximately 5%) chance that coins submitted for a second time will be approved. I think your chances might be improved if the coin has a new serial number.

@oldrattler said:
I had a 1908 $2 1/2 gold Indian ms63 in an old rattler holder with a CAC bean on it. Looked pretty good so I cracked it out and sent it in raw. Came back ms63. Sent it back to CAC and it didn't sticker. Ouch! Consistency? Go figure.

Back to the original thread comment - if you send in your previous cert# and and image of the coin in the original slab, they bean it almost every time, if fact, I have done that dozens of times and each one beaned.

Best, SH

@Zoins said:

@PerryHall said:

@oldrattler said:
MS64 of course. That would have been a nice price jump. But I've had $2 1/2 Indians in rattlers jump from ms63 to ms65 before as I'd guess others on this forum have experienced also

If your coin was worthy of a higher grade, wouldn't CAC have given it a gold sticker? When you play the crack-out game, you sometimes lose. Use this as a learning experience.

Not necessarily. There have been quite a few reports of a green beaned coin getting a full grade bump and getting green beaned again.

If it green beaned at the higher grade, shouldn't it have gold beaned at the original lower grade? This is getting confusing.

Rattler & bean for me ... why chase an upgrade? Seems in this case it did not turn out very well.

Do you have a picture of the coin?

Call me naive, but i respectfully disagree. I truly believe when it comes time to decide if a coin merits a sticker, I believe the holder does not come into play, but they look at only the coin!

I've posted this on the CAC forum, and while other members have chimed in (and they agree with me), my opinion and those that agree with me don't mean anything until we hear from CAC. Still waiting.

By the way, while CAC "makes a market", they don't automatically buy everything that's offered to them at wholesale rates. I believe (but i could be wrong), that they could pass on a coin offered to them, or instead offer a price lower than wholesale if they really don't want it.

Steve

consistency is no more or less then grading companies. Submit resubmit until you get what you want or not. These companies are obviously for money making and resubmissions are part of that. I don't know much about CAC but grading companies do not discourage resubmissions. Who is looking at your coin matters as much as grading guidelines in my opinion.
Al

@MFeld said:

@Crypto said:

@Zoins said:

@winesteven said:

@Zoins said:

Very interesting if CAC bean considers age of holders. I never thought about it but it makes a lot of sense from a liquidity and demand perspective.

While I agree with liquidity and demand increasing with a very old holder, I’d be shocked if J. A. takes that into account at all. I believe he looks ONLY at the coin to make a determination if it passes or not.

Steve

I’m not sure about it either way but @Crypto indicates it’s considered. It also provides a reason for the coin not beaning in a modern holder with the same grade.

CAC makes a market in CAC coins, considering the impact collectible holders have on liquidity/value and their mission statement is to grade the holder. It would be naïve to think it wasn't considered even if just at the eye appeal level.

I can’t imagine that CAC would look at an MS63 Indian quarter eagle and take its holder into consideration, when deciding whether to sticker the coin.

You don’t think a collectible holder increases the appeal of a coin? You think CAC doesn’t?

Even if subconsciously, I don’t see how they could ignore it. Can’t you see an equation where a honest but unremarkable coin gets a bump into “B coin” status due to its packaging.

Modern coin grading is about the total coin so much more there the classic technical wear levels. This concept is about factoring in the mint surface, luster, strike and eye appeal. It is already happened but the holder is now part of that total package with quantifiable degrees of desirability. There are A holders and D holders and everything in between.

Grades and eye appeal are just abstract concepts trying to peg value and liquidity, the holder plays a big a part now days and a CAC sticker means a good package. I simply don’t see a scenario where they don’t factor it in, heck they already don’t allow D & C holders for consideration. A rattler isn’t viewed the same as an early 2000s NGC by anybody, why would cac be blind to it?

@winesteven said:
No doubt “The Market” adds value and demand to coins in OGH’s. I never said anything contrary to that. But it’s apples to oranges saying that CAC takes the holder into account in their determination if a coin is solid for the grade (or not)!!!!!

Steve

Eye appeal is subjective and coins look different in different holders. While I can’t speak for which part of the margins it effects and clearly a coin can still fail in a great holder and pass in an unremarkable one. Esp type coins like an MS63 quarter eagle need a little something extra to standout on the floor and holders can give them that pop.

It should be noted the technical merits coin were all but proven with the crack out and same grade but yet CAC didn’t like it as much. I find it strange people would rather credit it to inconsistency of the opinions they value so much rather than the obvious that the coin lost something in the value proposition that made it just another commercial UNC in a sea of them.